Last week I attended the 43rd Improving University Teaching Conference held on the Charles Sturt University Port Macquarie campus. As an international conference it attracted representatives from Australia, Scotland, China, South Africa, USA, Canada, Fiji and more..... This was a small and very friendly event and over the three main days I did three presentations - each one with a slightly different format.
This post focuses on the 'Paper presentation' which was a 45 minute session where I talked about my topic based on a slideshow, and then we had discussion and questions in the room. The outcome of this session is an academic paper (yet to be finalised!). Here are some essential artefacts to learn from in the meantime. Thanks to Judy O'Connell for tweeting this out during the session!
When designing online learning consideration should be given to how a community can be built around subject content and objectives and how students will interact with the academic and with each other. The institutional learning management system affords a safe and reliable albeit often less than inspiring space for learning. New digital learning environments using the affordances of Web 2.0 technologies support connected and collaborative pedagogies. Holistic approaches with a focus on multimodal design extends learning into online spaces for improved engagement, provision for response choices (text, audio, video), online publishing and media creation while fostering new pedagogical approaches.
Digital learning environments using the affordances of Web 2.0 technologies support holistic learning design for connected and collaborative pedagogies.
This session shared research-based holistic implementation of Web 2.0 tools (tools that allow for multimodal communication, interaction and collaboration as well as online publishing and media creation), or the ‘collaboration web’ (Harasim, 2017) as a design feature for online subjects in higher education. Emerging pedagogies based on participatory and collaborative online learning were examined with current examples of learning space design using Web 2.0 tools shared via the Case Study of INF537 - Digital Futures Colloquium. This is the capstone subject I co-wrote and teach at Charles Sturt University as part of the Master of Education degree in Knowledge Networking and Digital Innovation.
These three essential understandings frame the presentation content:
- Subject and learning design in conjunction with management of Web 2.0 tools is crucial. There needs to be a pedagogical purpose for each tool and transparency around why and how each tool is implemented. Design must respect student time and workflow, and not all activities may be mandatory.
- Teacher presence in conjunction with online agility and flexibility is a key factor. The ideal approach is for academics to be in the online spaces with the students. Teacher presence is the glue that holds this holistic approach together.
- Open scholarship in conjunction with networked and digital learning should be the norm when using Web 2.0 tools. Leaving a digital legacy is a goal afforded by Web 2.0 tools. It can be exciting to see where the learning grows and interconnects with others beyond the class (experts, peers etc.).
Veletsianos (2016) believes that sociocultural factors make technologies and practices emergent. Participatory technologies like online social networks and blogging have become an integral part of open scholarship. However, he questions what effect online socialisation with peers via social networking sites might have for online learners, as well as the pedagogical affordances of these sites. Tensions between Web 2.0 use and educational practice in higher education are shared in research by Bennett, Bishop, Dalgarno, Waycott and Kennedy (2012) where more successful outcomes saw alignment between educational and Web 2.0 practices and highlighted the potential learning benefits from effective use, through student content creation and sharing. Lock and Johnson (2016) discuss the need for careful consideration of technology to support student completion of collaborative learning tasks, and at the higher education level students should be empowered to make those decisions. Kuit and Fell (2010) found that constructivism underpins the use of Web 2.0 technologies, and the role of the academic in this process is pertinent to foster judgement, synthesis, research and collaborative practices.
As part of the INF537 Case Study discussion one of the tools shared is FlipGrid. This is a vital communication and collaboration tool that has recently been bought out by Microsoft. Kudos to FlipGrid creators for their inspiration and we will wait to see what MS does with the tool - so far it has been made FREE to educators but with the implementation of a mandatory password on each Grid. My thoughts about that as an educational imposition will be shared in a subsequent blog post.....
Meanwhile you can access the INF537 FlipGrid where students discuss preliminary ideas for their Research Assignment. Password is INF537-17
Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524-534.
Koehler, A. A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2017). Examining the Role of Web 2.0 Tools in Supporting Problem Solving During Case-Based Instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3-4), 182-197.
Kuit, J. A., & Fell, A. (2010). Web 2.0 to pedagogy 2.0: A social-constructivist approach to learning enhanced by technology. In R. Donnelly, J. Harvey, & K. O’Rourke (Eds.), Critical design and effective tools for elearning in higher education: Theory into practice (pp. 310-325). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Lock, J., & Johnson, C. (2017). From Assumptions to Practice: Creating and Supporting Robust Online Collaborative Learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 16(1), 47-66.
Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital Learning Environments. In N. Rushby & D. Surry (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Technologies (pp. 242-260): Wiley.